Cielo Magno's Bruised Ego

Undressing the hypocrisy of PinkBaby Cielo Magno

Living in any society inherently means coexisting with differences that will inevitably offend someone, somewhere. As Sartre quipped, "Hell is other people"—a nod to the friction that diversity, the bedrock of the human condition, guarantees. Society is not a utopian chorus of mutual praise or ego-stroking duplicates humming "Kumbaya"; it’s a gritty, ceaseless clash with the abrasive and obnoxious.

The idea of wielding the State’s coercive power—think laws against offensive speech—to cocoon individuals or groups from hurt feelings is dangerous. That power is defensible only when it safeguards actual physical safety, not emotional comfort. Why? Emotional safety lacks an objective yardstick, unlike physical security, making it ripe for abuse by those influential enough to bend the government to their sensitivities. If offending someone becomes a crime, the accused is left defenceless, burdened with proving a negative against an accuser’s subjective claim—“I’m offended because I say so.”

The State can’t adjudicate feelings without descending into tautology: my offense is proven by my saying it’s offensive. This subjectivity renders any law protecting against offended feelings arbitrary and perilous.

For nearly a decade of blogging, I’ve endured transphobic and homophobic slurs—offenses punishable under the Safe Spaces Act (Republic Act No. 11313)—yet I’ve never filed a case, even though a lot of my lawyer friends had been advising me to do it. I could, but I don’t, because I refuse to let my hurt feelings justify locking someone up. I’m an adult; I don’t need the State to shield my ego from the world’s rough edges.

Just take for example the November 30, 2024 post of Cielo Magno:

After I repeatedly called her out on her silence regarding the liquidation issues at her alma mater, the University of the Philippines, and those of the politician she supports, Leila de Lima, she fired back with, “Hindi ka naman pwede naglilihi, dahil wala ka namang matres,” paired with a face-with-hand-over-mouth emoji— a mischievous laughter, mocking my being trans. I could, if I wanted, drag her to court, weaponize (a favourite word of liberal-wokes in the Philippines) the Safe Spaces Act against her, and argue it’s a transphobic slur, and let her spend money to defend that it is NOT a transphobic slur under that law. Yet I didn’t. I’m an adult. I don’t need the judicial system to babysit my feelings.

After that series of banter online, on December 16, 2024, Cielo Magno invited me to be a guest in her You Tube Channel, to discuss the UP unliquidated funds issue with former COA official Heide Mendoza. This was her FB message to me.

So, I joined them. Here’s an interesting extract from that conversation, which I will emphasize in this clip.

When I raised the issue of why we were bantering with her online, she said: “Hindi naman ako napipikon, sanay ako sa kulitan” (I don’t get peeved, I’m used to banter). Then she laughed. I was raising her silence on the long-standing issue of the “liquidation by certification” issue of Congress, which I had been raising since 2023. I won’t detail it, but here’s one good discussion about it.

Magno’s statement to me in that conversation shows her intent of brushing off banter online, as she’s used to it. In that statement, she paints her as thick-skinned, someone who thrives in the rough-and-tumble of discourse—perhaps even online spats. If she’s used to “kulitan,” a term implying playful, informal exchanges, it could imply she’s not fazed by provocative or cheeky remarks, satirical or otherwise. It’s her way to dismiss earlier barbs as no big deal, signaling she’s above petty squabbles.

She used “kulitan,” but the street slang for it is “alaskahan.” This blog written in 2011, fully captures what it means in Philippine culture:

Alaskahan is the ability to tease using associations, connections and indirectness. It is a game of comparison which allows the subject to think what exactly, in the situation, in his or her features, in his or her sense of style, in his or her remark, is being mocked at or being made fun of. Alaskahanwas not invented to put down anyone. Nonetheless, this play is still not for the faint at heart. It is widely practiced in the Filipino social, non-pretentious gatherings and bonding among friends and loved ones. I say non-pretentious since the game of alaskadoes not offer polite remarks nor compliments. It does not fit in a formal setting unless done in whispers, and those involved are able to merely shake shoulders when in need to express laughter.

In our conversation, she said we should file a Supreme Court case against the “liquidation by certification” issue, yet instead of that, she filed a “cyberlibel” case because suddenly she got peeved because of a banter.

The hurt feelings of Cielo Magno

In explaining her move, Magno told GMA News this:

This was echoed by Rappler, an allied media of Magno.

This is the original post:

I wrote it after the House of Representatives impeached Vice President Sara Duterte on February 5. A Facebook user, Jethol C. Paanod, who studied Communication, Pragmatics (behavior of language), and Literature, wrote an analysis of the post.

This is the post of Sass for which she’s being sued for cyber libel by UP Associate Professor Cielo Magno.

As someone who studied Communication, Pragmatics (behavior of language), and Literature, I’d like to share my personal take on the matter for educational purposes.

At worst, the post is a joke. The laughing emojis gave it away.

At best, the post is replete with rhetorical devices to drive home a point: paradox, situational irony, antithesis, adynaton.

Paradox. Sass is saying that because we are all taxpayers, being OK that congressmen received huge amounts of money through unprogrammed insertions is literally us giving them money to run after Mary Grace Piatos. This undermines our intent in fighting corruption.

Situational Irony. We want to fight corruption but by tolerating congressmen’s shameless use of public funds, we end up contributing to corruption.

Antithesis: The way Sass juxtaposed two contradictions between the intent to fight corruption and the questionable method to fight it through allocating taxpayers money for congressmen to spend on unprogrammed projects.

Adynaton: A type of hyperbole, which is an exaggeration to the point of impossibility. Everybody knows that Prof. Magno doesn’t have billions to give to congressmen. So we know it’s an exaggeration.

In my view, I don’t see a malicious imputation of a crime. If anything, Sass is accusing Prof. Magno of hypocrisy and being a hypocrite doesn’t make one a criminal. It only makes one a Pinklawan.

It is very clear that the House of Representatives increased by about 105% during the Bicameral Conference: From 16.3 billion it increased to 33.7 billion! She knows this for a fact because she has a copy of the Bicameral Conference Committee Report. In fact, she was the one who put this a Google Drive.

What exactly is the reason why Congressmen had to be given an additional 17.3 billion for 2025 during the bicameral conference committee, except for the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte? Isn’t that Magno’s money, because, as she said, the money that goes to the Congressmen are the people’s money, she didn't get it? Is she not part of the “people”?

Magno’s hypocrisy

Magno explained her “bigger picture” rationale for filing the case against me. She said on March 25, 2025: “I hope that by this action we are slowly able to restore civility and begin a path towards accountability and governance.”

Big words for someone who said to my face: “Hindi naman ako napipikon, sanay ako sa kulitan” (I don’t get peeved, I’m used to banter).

Magno is the Chairperson of Bantay Kita, “a nationwide coalition of civil society organizations united in empowering communities for meaningful participation in natural resource governance towards sustainability and resiliency.”

According to their website, one of the partners of Bantay Kita is USAID, which President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE wants to dismantle. USAID is a foreign policy tool of the United States to promote its interests by funding NGO’s like Magno’s NGO’s/

In his February 26, 2025 testimony to U.S. Congress Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, Noam Unger, Director, Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative, and Senior Fellow, Project on Prosperity and Development of Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated: “U.S. foreign assistance continues to be a critical tool to advance U.S. interests and national security.”

But what is more interesting about Bantay Kita is its partnership with Article 19 organization:

According to its website, ARTICLE 19 “works for a world where all people everywhere can freely express themselves and actively engage in public life without fear of discrimination.”

Just this February, Article 19 launched a campaign for Kazakh authorities to drop all charges against Temirlan Yensebek, a blogger. Yensebek “is the founder of the satirical site Qaznews24, which produces mock news to highlight the socio-political situation of Kazakhstan through irony and absurdity, often referencing current issues and challenges.” Furthermore, Article 19 explains that “this is not the first time the authorities have targeted Yensebek for his satirical work. In 2021, he was accused of ‘spreading knowingly false information’ after police publicly claimed that Qaznews24’s content was ‘disinforming the population and misleading citizens’.”

Does that sound familiar? Yes. It is the same kind of content Magno wants me imprisoned for: An obviously satirical content. The 2015 Philippine Supreme Court decision on Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, provides this definition of satirical posts:

Satire is a “literary form that employs such devices as sarcasm, irony and ridicule to deride prevailing vices or follies,” and this may target any individual or group in society, private and government alike. It seeks to effectively communicate a greater purpose, often used for “political and social criticism” “because it tears down facades, deflates stuffed shirts, and unmasks hypocrisy. . . . Nothing is more thoroughly democratic than to have the high-and-mighty lampooned and spoofed.” Northrop Frye, well-known in this literary field, claimed that satire had two defining features: “one is wit or humor founded on fantasy or a sense of the grotesque and absurd, the other is an object of attack.” Thus, satire frequently uses exaggeration, analogy, and other rhetorical devices.

And as the netizen who analyzed the post Magno finds “libelous,” it is exactly what I intended to do with that post, I am unveiling Magno’s hypocrisy. Magno’s ego got hurt.

Article 19, the partner organization of Magno’s Bantay Kita states in their campaign the Kazakh blogger Yensebek:

The right to freedom of expression extends to satire and jokes, even if they are in bad taste, trivial, shocking, or offensive. Satire is a form of artistic expression, which is naturally designed to provoke and agitate to amplify social commentary. It is key to assess satirical statements, which may contain elements of style perceived as ‘vulgar phrases’ or ‘offensive language’, in the context in which they are expressed. In any event, criminal prosecution for humour and critical commentary is a manifestly disproportionate measure that stifles debate on issues of public interest and chills civic engagement.

Yet in pushing to make me an example to protect her bruised ego, she’s claiming that she would be able to “restore civility and begin a path towards accountability and good governance.” All fluff no substance. Instead of filing a Supreme Court case against the “liquidation by certification” practice of Philippine Congress, which concerns BILLIONS of HER MONEY as a taxpayer, she prioritised her feelings and bruised ego despite the fact that she said straight to my face that she doesn’t get peeved because she’s used to banter. Pink hypocrisy and virtue-signalling at its finest. When they insult and joke about their opponents, it’s freedom of speech. When it’s done to them, they need the judicial system to babysit their hurt egos.

In 2013, Article 19, the partner organization of Magno’s Bantay Kita published “The Right to Blog.” The state: “Article 19 believes that freedom of expression cannot be trampled upon in the name of civility or politeness online.”

So one has to wonder what kind of partnership Magno’s Bantay Kita has with Article 19? Is it just about the money or about principle? This flip-flop from shrugging off jabs to crying foul exposes her hypocrisy—and underscores my point: the State shouldn’t be a crutch for bruised egos, hers included.

Magno is a Tonya Harding

Magno fancies herself a principled skater on the ice of public discourse, gliding with the grace of someone “sanay sa kulitan”—used to banter, unshaken by the fray. But beneath the polished spins lies a Tonya Harding streak: when the competition—say, a biting satirical post—threatens her spotlight, she doesn’t just stumble; she swings a legal crowbar. Like Harding, infamous for kneecapping rival Nancy Kerrigan to cling to glory, Magno’s cyber libel case against me over an obvious jest smacks of desperation, not resilience. It’s less about defending honour and more about sabotaging a critic who dared to land a triple axel of ironic truth too close to her rink. The irony? She’d rather shatter free expression than face the music—hardly the champion of civility she claims to be.

What this is all about is their group’s desire to dominate social media in preparation of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Rappler published this post in January 2025:

They know Duterte-aligned voices, like mine, are commanding the social media arena—my name’s even on their lips, a thorn in their side. But instead of rising to the challenge with sharper arguments, bolder positions, or fiercer rhetoric, they’re scrambling to kneecap the competition. As of this moment, it’s not about winning through merit and charisma; it’s about clearing the ice with a Tonya Harding move—swinging the blunt force of legal threats, like that cyber libel case from Magno, to hobble voices they can’t outtalk. They don’t want a fair social media or that hypocritical restoration of civility; they want a monopoly, rigging the rink so only their skates glide free, a cheap shot to mute what they can’t match.

In this social media showdown, I’m the Nancy Kerrigan with the following metrics on FB, as of writing. When she filed the ridiculous cyberlibel case, I had 558,970; after that, my following increased to 568,151. Meanwhile, her following is at 62K. So despite massive support from Philippine mainstream corporate media, she’s not making it.

In terms of views, as of writing, I now have 429,303,524 90-day views. Views are the number of times one’s content was played or displayed. And I now have a 90-day engagement of 63,250,906 engagements, which is the number of reactions, comments, shares, and clicks on posts. And these are all organic.

Meanwhile, Magno’s engagement is barely scrapping the surface. Her You Tube channel has a very anemic engagement, despite being aggressively promoted by Philippine mainstream corporate media.

To say Magno doesn’t care about metrics is a bald-faced lie. Her YouTube videos scream effort—polished production, crisp audio, slick graphics—while my livestreams stumble along, raw and unfiltered, leaning on nothing but my laptop’s tinny mic. She’s clearly fishing for an audience, pouring resources into content that begs to be seen. Yet, the numbers don’t lie: she’s not reeling them in. Instead of swinging legal crowbars at me, she should turn inward—do some soul-searching and ask why her glossy bait isn’t hooking the crowd while my rough-edged rants dominate. Maybe it’s not the mic; maybe it’s the message. Maybe Filipinos aren’t charmed by glitter, because they know that not all those that have a glittering title (e.g. Professor, etc) beside their name is gold. Filipinos on social media are attracted to raw authenticity, unapologetic voice, and not her clutching-pearls hypocrisy.

By filing a case, she wants to paint herself as an “underdog,” a victim. Yet Filipino netizens aren’t flocking to her and consuming her content. This is odd as Filipinos always root for the underdog. Perhaps Filipino netizens know who the real underdog is: the one they belittle as just a “blogger” in order to prop up their own achievements.

---